Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teachings of Robert Kiyosaki

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mailer Diablo 13:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teachings of Robert Kiyosaki

Blatant advertisement, and Kiyosaki already has a separate entry fbb_fan 02:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:ADS, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 02:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement as written, but might be willing to keep an NPOV rewrite. --Alan Au 02:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Actually, the author already has an article; this one is just advertising. --Alan Au 02:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. For a rewrite, I would suggest instead adding to Robert Kiyosaki (which also has POV problems at the moment). Hard to see why a separate page is needed. fbb_fan 02:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Ad as written; no reason why it should exist in parallel to Robert Kiyosaki. No opinion on whether the latter should be kept. Martinp 02:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Robert Kiyosaki. Non-encyclopedic advertising as it stands.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - I moved most of this stuff out of the main Kiyosaki article. I agree it is pretty crap. The biggest advantage I see in it now is it stops people filling the main article up with this stuff (particularly Sloth Monkey, who wrote most of what's seen here). I think Kiyosaki is a famous (or perhaps infamous) enough figure to justify this page existing if it's made more neutral, but I have no great hopes of that happening. If you do delete it, please dont cut and paste it back into the main Kiyosaki article, I already condensed most of the information into a blurb there. TastyCakes 05:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I sort of see your point, but the best way to deal with it is to police the Kiyosaki page, and if Sloth Monkey or anyone else adds advertising, deal with it appropriately. Wikipedia doesn't tolerate advertising - it's not "OK" to just move it and give the page a new name. fbb_fan 12:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete reads like advertorial, and most of it is generic get-rich-like-me motivational messages. Just zis Guy you know? 12:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this ad. Travislangley 20:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the surplus of links at the bottom feels like an ad and this is not a necessary article. Fbb_fan's advice on dealing with it is on point, and you can use the "unbalancing the article argument" as needed. I've read most of his books lately, and the article basically got the teachings right. Just having that much material in the article on him is unbalancing. I don't know how much of this is original to him, but certainly not all of it. For example, Warren Buffet believes that concentrating ones investments is, if you know what you are doing, a good idea, and he has been a successful investor longer than Kiyosaki has. GRBerry 01:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP --sloth_monkey 21:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I am outraged! I cannot believe that this article would be attacked by so much misconception and arbitration! Well thank goodness Wikipedia isn't a democracy; they do things based on policy and what is right. So let's review the policies and the purported violations of such:

- WP:ADS - This article is NOT an advertisement! If a person exists and they are known to be teaching certain things to people (such as the case with Robert Kiyosaki), then it is NOT an ADVERTISEMENT to simply TELL people about what this person is teaching in an article they are choosing to read because they want to know about what he is teaching. It is the sharing of factual information. Factual? Yes. It is a FACT that Robert Kiyosaki teaches these things. This article does NOT claim that what Kiyosaki teaches is fact. It simply states what he believes!!

- WP:NPOV - As stated before, this is factual information. It is a fact that Robert Kiyosaki believes and teaches these things. It is NOT claimed in this article that any of the things which he believes or teaches are factual themselves. He may very well believe things which are wrong and he may very well give bad advice. THAT is up to the reader to decide for themselves. And nowhere in this article does it imply whether or not you should believe the things that Kiyosaki teaches. It simply states WHAT he teaches; not the validity of such. As a matter of fact, Kiyosaki is constantly QUOTED in this article, so as to retain an exact reiteration of what he teaches. Telling people EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS, and only that, is by no means inserting any sort of opinion other than Kiyosaki's.

- WP:RS - Reliable sources? Are you kidding me?! How could anyone claim that the sources are not cited? All throughout the article is says exactly where information come from. It ALL comes DIRECTLY from Robert Kiyosaki! It is a reiteration of the things he teaches. That is the entire point of this article; for someone who wants to read about what Kiyosaki teaches and be aware of what he says, this accomplishes exactly that; by quoting him and summarizing exactly what HE HIMSELF says. The source? Robert Kiyosaki! The specific sources? Yes that is listed as well. You see all over the article things like "(Kiyosaki, Cashflow The E-Game)" or "–Robert Kiyosaki 2002 Retire Young, Retire Rich".

I wrote this article almost entirely by myself. I did so by personally going through Kiyosaki's material (audiobooks, computer games, etc.) and summarizing/quoting exactly what he teaches. I have spent an enormous amount of time on this article; many, many days. And I feel I have contributed greatly to Wikipedia in doing so. I have produced something which is difficult (if not impossible) to find anywhere, much less previously on Wikipedia; I have made a very thorough documentation encompassing as much as possible of (while still summarizing) what Robert Kiyosaki teaches. Now anyone can simply visit Wikipedia if they want to have a good understanding of what Kiyosaki teaches people and his (HIS, not my) opinions on things. That is the purpose of this article; it accomplished it well; and in writing it, I have complied with Wikipedia's guidelines.

This article should NOT be deleted.

--sloth_monkey 21:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete. I'd suggest merging to the author, but all verifiable content is already there. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC) (So I can't spell — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

Keep. Excuse me? "All veriable content is already there"? Well first of all "veriable" isn't a word. Secondly, I cannot believe the lack of support shown here for having a complete, thorough account of the subject at hand. If someone were to want to learn about what Robert Kiyosaki believes and teaches to his students, this explains exactly that; and it does it well. A short concise summary of this, as seen on the main article on Robert Kiyosaki, does what it's supposed to: it provides a quick summary. It does not however provide anywhere near the amount of information shown here; obviously. To say that this article should be replaced by a short summary, is to degrade the very idea of Wikipedia. Wikipedia provides a wealth of information. It does not simply cover each given subject with a short summary with little to no elaboration or explanation. --sloth_monkey 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I urge the closing admin to remember the following (taken from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion): "Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not." See also: [1]

I point this out for obvious reasons. Many people in this discussion are voting to have this article deleted. I believe they are presenting this notion based on faulty reasoning and an incomplete picture of the facts. Please review the article for what it is (Teachings of Robert Kiyosaki). I believe it to be in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines, as well as a very good, elaborative source of information on this topic. Reducing it to a mere summary would not nearly do it justice. And deleting the article entirely is absurd. --sloth_monkey 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Please see WP:AFD. The first point worth noting is:

The debate is not a vote

You have voted "Keep" twice now; please stop trying to stuff the ballot box. Also, see the section on AfD etiquette. A spelling flame is not good form, and isn't too likely to sway people to your side. fbb_fan 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my lack of etiquette. I am rather upset that all of my work may be for nothing and is apparently very underappretiated. I apologize if that disgruntled attitude shows through to my words. Also in writing "Keep" more than once, I was not trying to bombard this discussions with votes; I was simply making my stance crystal clear. And I believe it was I who pointed out that this is not a voting ballot and Wikipedia is not a democracy. --sloth_monkey 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I would like to point out a possibility here. There are those who view this article to be little more than an "advertisement" for the man Robert Kiyosaki and his various money making endeavors, such as his "educational" material or motivational speaking. I would say that this belief stems from the opinion that Robert Kiyosaki is not to be taken seriously. If this were an article on Harvard University, the support for an elaborate explanative article on the subject would be much higher, simply because people respect the university as an established source of education; you wouldn’t see an objection to such an elaboration as seen here in this article. The point is that it is merely a subjective opinion that this subject (the “education” provided by Kiyosaki) does not deserve to be elaborated on, whereas another source of education would. It would be unfair and unequal treatment to arbitrarily decide that Kiyosaki is not a good source of information/education and therefore does not deserve to have his teachings explained in an article here.

Please consider that while some may view this article to be overly elaborate, it does still simply provide a summary of the different subjects which Kiyosaki teaches. It is still just a summary; but a more useful one than the concise summary provided on the main Kiyosaki article (his bio). I believe all of the information presented here is needed in order to provide a more complete understanding of what Kiyosaki teaches and his meaning in what he says, so as to not misrepresent his work with inadequate information. I have made use of direct quotes from Kiyosaki in order to deliver the most NPOV representation of his work possible. Also, as stated before, I have certainly cited my sources throughout the article.

Considering all of this, the only reason I could see someone would say to have this article deleted is because of mere preference, in that they do not think what Kiyosaki has to say is worth listening to. Well I say it is up to the reader to decide this. Not the people here. --sloth_monkey 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Additionally, I would like to add that for the sake of balance, there is a section on criticism and contraversy regarding the teachings of Robert Kiyosaki. This article is on Kiyosaki's main bio (Robert Kiyosaki). Presented here in this article (Teachings of Robert Kiyosaki) is simply the advice/information as he gives it. No opinion on whether or not it is good advice/information is given here in this article. --sloth_monkey 17:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. If the closing admin decides that there are too many external links in this article and that it should be considered a mild form of spam, then by all means delete/modify the links. I don't care about them really. But consider that they were put there with the intention of being helpful and giving people additional material to review on other web sites; not for any reason related to spamming/promoting. --sloth_monkey 21:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Thank you for pointing out a possible reason for delete votes. After reconsideration, and although the 45 page critique is better written and probably more accurate than his books, merging objective descriptions of his teachings into the article about him is probably the best way to go. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep It doesnt sound like a Ad, I would be really pissed off since what im selling is avaible for free on wikipedia, and it sounds like stuff is here isnt being sold, what is there to buy, where is the catch or the product in the article?Patcat88 04:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.